Please use this thread for (and only for) alerting admins to moderation issues and for raising complaints arising from particular decisions. We remind participants that TSZ is a benign dictatorship, the property of Dr. Elizabeth Liddle. All decisions regarding policy and implementation are hers alone.
Confused, for or against dropping the hammer on keiths?
If you got your wish and joined the ranks of moderation and keiths ,like the hothead that he is, authored a potentially libelous post, what would you as a moderator do? Just curious.
Mung, to Neil:
keiths:
newton:
Newton logic: If it doesn’t deter you, it isn’t punitive.
Um, newton — you might want to rethink that.
It was probably visible to keiths, because he is the author.
It should now be visible to everyone. This is in the interest of transparency. Comments are closed for that thread.
Do you expect us to have to cruze the filth in guano to know if the moderators are being fair?
It would be so much easier if we trusted that there was someone who did not mind that sort of thing to make sure that the mods were being fair so that we could get on with the discussions we are interested in.
peace
That’s just pitiful, Neil. You’re back to censoring again.
Many thanks to dr. Little for allowing our admins to remove the feature OP about her fast approaching, and faith saving to atheists, return….
There is a God after all…
Unfortunately, we are going to be stuck now with a new, and more exciting features at TSZ – the full-blown display of narcissistic traits that could easily be summed by few words: “I am never wrong. Nobody dares to cross me…”- introducing keiths the miserable, retired, all knowing and having all time in the world to try to convince you that narcissism does really exist….
On the original Swamidass thread:
The OP doesn’t violate site rules, and neither would an OP entitled “Trump caught lying”.
You’re making a fool of yourself, Neil.
J-Mac,
I don’t claim to be infallible, and I admit my mistakes. And of course people “dare to cross me”. It happens all the time! This is TSZ, and I want people to express disagreement and debate their differences with me.
What I don’t want is for anyone, including you, to be censored.
He’s not doing anything that Elizabeth hasn’t done.
What about the rules though?
Like this one:
Hahaha good one!
He meant to say he admits if he makes a typo. Not that he admits he was wrong when accusing someone of lying, or quote-mining, or of having thoughts they never actually had. In those cases, he’s never wrong. So no mistakes to admit.
ETA: Or that he misinterpreted something.
Mung:
Think about it, Mung. Who would be dumb enough to interpret that rule as strictly as you are suggesting?
It would mean that no one could write something like “At UD, gpuccio made the following claim about islands of function. I disagree, and here’s why.”
That’s a nice sentiment, but you’re at the wrong site for that.
keiths:
walto:
Walto, you’ve previously had your ass handed to you — as did Alan — for claiming that I don’t admit mistakes, when the evidence clearly shows otherwise. Why make that same dumb mistake again?
Me. Elizabeth.
You are clearly violating that rule.
Yes and no. I’d like to see the rules changed so the mods could take care of his nonsense without violating them. The current mods seem to both like having really weak-ass rules and violating them when it seems to them to be required.
The thing is Lizzie will not change the rules, partly because she’s not here enough to see how ineffectual they are. So things will either go on the way they are at present, or there will be even less moderation (or none at all). I don’t see anything improving. Same or worse are the options.
Ok let’s wait for the admission that he’s wrong.
Mung,
This is the second time in two days that you’ve been bitch-slapped by evidence from a short time earlier.
In this case:
Mung:
keiths:
Neil:
Why not? Your personal feelings about the OP, and your desire to censor it, are irrelevant.
Do your job.
Moved a couple of posts to guano, even though we normally do not do that for this thread.
We are witnessing a complete Neil Rickert meltdown. Not only is he censoring OPs, he’s even guanoing comments out of Moderation Issues!
The posts that Neil is trying to hide can be found here.
Reality bites keiths.
When Mung wrote “I don’t see it.”, he was correct.
As Neil helpfully explained, the reason keiths could see it was because he was the author. It was NOT then visible to other posters (I checked… that’s how I roll).
Your original post violated the ‘poster’ rule, the ‘peanut gallery’ guideline and the ‘accusing other posters of dishonesty’ rule.
There is little point in continuing a conversation with someone so divorced from reality.
Jock:
Which I confirmed by saying “You’re right.” That was the whole point in quoting it. Mung claimed that I don’t admit mistakes, and I provided him with a counterexample from just a short time ago.
Slow down, Jock. You tend to go off half-cocked when you get emotional.
What a fucking joke. Tom English, Tom Mueller, DNA Jock, and the whole gang who can’t shoot straight CONSTANTLY use this site to attack (not one bit less libelous) those they disagree with at UD or the Discovery Institute or anyone else who doesn’t carry the atheists water.
Neil has finally admitted he is a full blown lying sociopath who has lost his meds, and refuses intervention. This is completely comical. If what keiths did violates the rules, then this whole site violates the rules, so Neils simply wants to show that he can violate the rules even more blatantly by saying the rules are whatever he says they are.
Alan strove to make the rules a silly rusty carnival ride. Neils wants to turn the site into a bad Yves Tanguy landscape of nonsense. And DNA Jock is his muse.
phoodoo:
Heh. Nice description.
What makes it worse is that these guys know they are humiliating themselves quite publicly. That makes them angrier, and they just dig their holes deeper.
The OP wasn’t visible. Doofus.
ETA:
As DNA_Jock confirmed, the OP was not visible. So there was no OP to click on.
When I said “I don’t see it,” it was merely a statement of fact. It wasn’t an allegation or an accusation. Sorry if you took it that way.
Mung:
I acknowledged my mistake, Mung. So once again, you (and walto) look silly for claiming that I don’t admit mistakes.
Don’t sweat it. People expect you to screw up.
This proof of yours is very much like your recent proof that you did not viciously attack me re Plantinga by providing a single post in which you did not do so. I will readily admit that you have admitted to being wrong two or three times among your scores of thousands of posts, literally hundreds of which have been erroneous.
But anyhow–good on you. It didn’t kill you, nor would it to admit that your OP was rules-violative–just as mung, Neil, and jock said. (remember, your original response was much more typical of your mo–you called mung’s reading ‘dumb.’)
Try to get on a roll here–it would be good for your soul.
What I feel most sorry for re: keiths’ difficulties with ‘people in general’ here about right now is expressed in Lamentations 3, particularly verses 31-33.
Jock,
Neil has gone off the rails, both by refusing to publish a perfectly legitimate new OP and by guanoing comments that belong in the Moderation Issues thread, where they were posted.
Will you finally, for once, do your job and intervene against Neil’s blatant abuses?
walto,
If Keiths post is a rules violation, because it attacks an academic, then is Neils going to go back and delete everything Tom English and Tom Mueller have ever written here; to help destroy the evidence?
No idea. But calling somebody a liar in your OP title is probably not the best way to go if you want your post to slide though.
ETA: fwiw, not a whole lot would be lost deep-sixing mueller’s ‘contributions’ here, in my own biased opinion. Sadly, I don’t get to decide. If I ran this place, there’d be considerably less ‘content’–mostly in the areas of insults and repetitions, but I’d prolly also knock some stuff out that doesn’t even really make sense to the author of it.
phoodoo,
I want to encourage you to try to distinguish between “attacking” an academic by pointing out that he is wrong (and explaining exactly why he is wrong), versus “attacking” an academic by making the baseless assertion that he is lying. Two different things. The first is the very basis of academic discourse, the second is like threatening his family.
DNA_Jock,
Not sure why you inserted ‘baseless’ there. Keiths always believes that he has some ‘basis’ for everything he posts. (Or — even if he actually doesn’t, he’ll always claim that he does, when challenged.)
Your new OP avoids the third problem I mentioned, but still suffers from the first two.
Maybe you did not pick up on my meaning when I wrote “There is little point in continuing a conversation with someone so divorced from reality.”
I think that you should take a few deep breaths, maybe go off-line for a day or two, and see how you feel. The way you are behaving right now does you no credit, and if I were more dedicated to “doing my job” and intervening, you would not like the result.
Mung:
keiths:
keiths:
Mung:
You, yes. Lizzie, no. She’s not an idiot, Mung. It’s routine for people at TSZ to criticize the ideas and actions of people outside of TSZ.
Do you seriously think that Lizzie, of all people, would object to the publication of an OP entitled “Trump’s falsehoods”? That’s exactly what Neil is doing — just with “Swamidass” substituted for “Trump”.
It’s ridiculous, and Neil knows it. That’s why he wanted to sweep the evidence away to Guano, instead of leaving it here where it belongs.
Trump, Swamidass–all the same when it comes to libel laws, right?
Wait.
walto,
Both public figures — Trump as president, and Swamidass as the founder and leader of Peaceful Science.
In any case, talking about someone’s falsehoods is not libel.
Yea right Jock. The Tom Twins posts along with plenty of yours would suggest no such precedent exists here.
Is this your first day reading content here? Presumably yours weren’t ghost written were they?
How does Lizzie choose her moderators, by a crayon drawing contest or does she just use cadaver dogs?
And you as the head of the mutineers at tsz! Celebs, all!
Please.
I have to say, this cracked me up. In my case, I hope it’s crayons.
Seriously, walto — do you actually think a reference to “Swamidass’s falsehoods” would be libelous?
If so, then you should be in a panic about most of the comments and OPs at TSZ, which don’t hesitate to label various people’s positions as false.
OMiGod — someone said gpuccio’s claim was false! Guano that comment immediately!
He has representations in his brain for all of it. They may or may not correspond to reality.
We weren’t talking about Neil. Nor the title of the OP. But nice change of subject.
Just wondering. Were you even aware that you were doing it?
keiths,
Calling somebody a liar is defamatory. Look it up.
And you and Swamidass are not public figures,
Sorry.
walto,
Then you agree that my new OP — the one that Neil is refusing to publish, and which does not call Swamidass a liar — is not libelous on that account. Correct?
From Wikipedia:
That’s precisely what Swamidass has done with regard to the evolution controversies among Christians. He has made himself a public figure in that sense.
And even if he somehow didn’t qualify as a public figure, so what? I can support my claims against Swamidass, so it isn’t libel.
I haven’t read it, but if it doesn’t call the guy a liar then it can’t be libelous on account of calling him a liar.